TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the rent note executed only by the tenant, for a term of 11 months at a fixed monthly rent, was compulsorily registrable and, if not, whether it could be used in evidence to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant; (ii) whether the earlier judgment relied upon by the defendants operated as res judicata in the present suit.
Issue (i): whether the rent note executed only by the tenant, for a term of 11 months at a fixed monthly rent, was compulsorily registrable and, if not, whether it could be used in evidence to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant.
Analysis: The document was executed only by Aziz Uddin and therefore did not answer the statutory description of a lease requiring execution by both lessor and lessee under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As the term was only 11 months and the rent was fixed monthly, it was not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(d) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. In that situation, Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 did not exclude the document from being received in evidence for the purpose of proving the transaction and the tenancy terms recorded in it. The decision relied upon by the respondents was distinguished because it dealt with a document sought to be used to alter the character of an existing adverse possession, whereas no such pre-existing possession was shown here.
Conclusion: The rent note was admissible in evidence and could be relied upon to establish the tenancy.
Issue (ii): whether the earlier judgment relied upon by the defendants operated as res judicata in the present suit.
Analysis: The prior suit did not decide the issues arising in the present case. The judgment produced from that matter showed that the relevant questions here were not directly and substantially adjudicated there, and the suit had itself been dismissed. Accordingly, that decision could not bar the present claim on the ground of res judicata.
Conclusion: The plea of res judicata failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree of the lower appellate court was set aside, and the trial court's decree for ejectment and monetary reliefs was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: A rent note executed only by the tenant for a term not exceeding one year is not compulsorily registrable, and if it does not seek to alter an existing possession, it may be admitted to prove the tenancy relationship; a prior decision bars a later suit only when the same issues were directly and substantially decided earlier.
TaxTMI 
